Category Archives: Blogroll

Wrighteous Indignation

The democrat party is really really really (really) upset with John McCain.  Well, not for anything John McCain did, but for an advertisement the Republican party of North Carolina is running in that region that mentions the connection between Barry Obama and his America hating “spiritual” mentor.  Ready to see the most insideous ad since the Willie Horton commercial?

I know what you’re thinking — did I accidentally post the wrong video?  Nope, that’s the “horrible” video the democrats are fuming about.  Without going into the obvious rant about how thin-skinned and weak-minded these idiots on the left always seem to be, I’ll instead comment on the left’s common response to anything that “hits a little too close to home” for them.  What’s their common response you ask?  What, righteous indignation, of course.

“The fact that Senator McCain can’t get his own party to take down this misleading, personal attack ad raises serious questions about his promise to the American people that he will run a civil, respectful campaign,” Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan said in a statement.

So, let me see if I have this straight, McCain should be held responsible for this ad—which McCain has already condemned and begged to be taken down—but Barry Obama shouldn’t be held responsible for what his pastor of twenty years preached to him and his young children?  Got it!  We should hold McCain responsible for what the local Republican party of North Carolina preaches, but not what Obama’s preacher preaches!?!?!?  How does this sound democrats?

No, no, no, not God bless Barack Obama… GOD DAMN BARACK OBAMA!!!!  GOD DAMN BARACK OBAMA!!!!

Hurts doesn’t it Barry?

Advertisements

Hearts and Minds and Bears, Oh My!

For about five years now—since the liberation of Iraq—we’ve been hearing a lot about the importance of winning the “hearts and minds” of a nation’s citizenry in order to “secure the peace” after a war is fought and won.  During this time we’ve all read articles, watched newscasts, listened to pundits, and talked to our friends — pontificating whether the West was “winning” or “losing” in Iraq.  The hardest variable to figure out in a tough equation such as this, as in any complex problem, is quantifying what to measure and how to measure it.  What represents a win, a loss, or more so, what represents whether you’re currently heading towards a win or a loss. 

Not that anyone wants to put something so serious as war in the form of a lame and possibly disrespectful analogy, but everyone wants to know when we as team supporters should give up and leave the stadium to beat traffic.  Personally, I’ve always been part of the 1/3 that stay in the stadium regardless of whether my team is ahead, behind, or getting hammered by the opposition with no chance of even a miracle comeback.  With that said, I’ve never thought for a second that the U.S. military was even down, let alone in a position of possibly losing in Iraq.  Now, you may think I’m an idiot for consistently holding this position where we couldn’t lose in Iraq, but that’s probably because you consume all your thoughts through the filter of the media and then recite, no, regurgitate them as your own, instead of creating thoughts through research, logic, and reason.  In sports colloquialism, you’re quite simply a worthless bandwagon fan.

In the current situation, the only possible chance the “away team” could have lost in Iraq was during the 2004 and 2006 midterm elections.  The only way to lose then was through a precipitous pullout before the people of Iraq even had a chance to get their ducks in a row, leaving the country to the whims of criminals, and eventually another dictator.  Equating what the people of Iraq have to do to get their country in order as “getting their ducks in a row” is quite possibly the biggest understatement since… well, I’ve got nothing, it’s probably the biggest understatement ever.  If you need a nice reference point as to what the Iraqi’s are up against politically, do a little research on how hard it was for the city of Boston to dig a big tunnel under their city; and no one was shooting at the workers or trying to blow up the tunnel during that project either.   

Can anyone give me an example of an existing government being completely dismantled and another being formed in the span of five years without massive military involvement and civil unrest?  You hear from some pundits on the left about how it took less time to get Germany and Japan in order after World War II.  The parallels aren’t even close to similar, not to mention we’re still “occupying” those countries today.  To this day, we provide Japan with most of their national defense, while Germany needed our military presence for fifty years after World War II to keep the Russians at bay to the west. 

Japan and Germany’s perceived lack of an insurgency following the war—even though most aren’t aware that there was one in both countries (see: German Werewolf Insurgency)—may have had something to do with the level of destruction to those countries, with the enemy and all infrastructure being completely and utterly destroyed.  The enemy was not just disbanded and sent home in Germany, it was killed in the millions.  After the war, some European countries were without a significant young male population all together.  Japan had not one, but two atomic bombs dropped on two separate major industrial cities.  The hearts and minds of the enemy didn’t have to be won, because they were destroyed.  Bother countries geographical location, with one being an island and the other being surrounded by allied friendly countries, may have also contributed to such a small post war insurgency. 

Can you name the places the United States liberated and are still “occupying” that isn’t a free and prosperous nation today?  Germany, Japan, South Korea, France, Poland?  Better or worse?  Would the people of Kuwait be better or worse off right now?  What if Kennedy decided to hold his end of the bargain and help the people of Cuba during the Bay of Pigs, or better yet, not involve us in Vietnam without a plan for winning the peace?  Two million Cambodians would love to know, but unfortunately, they’re dead.  Millions of North Koreans, living in the stone age, would love to have the misfortune of being “invaded” like Iraq.  It’s like winning the lottery for most countries, but only when the military is allowed to do their good works and finish the damn job.  

Flash forward to Iraq, 2003.  In this current iteration of war we have seen the unprecedented execution of a plan designed to minimize civilian as well as even military casualty.  This has more to do with explaining the power of the insurgency as anything else.  Yes, destroying the infrastructure would have meant more rebuilding, but by leaving in place the vast number of enemy soldiers and commanders that were intentional embedded into the general population, the stage was set for a first in military history.  Not only was the military leadership scattered amongst the general population, along with vast amounts of cash to finance operations, but the infrastructure necessary to wage an insurgency was also left at their disposal.  The alternative was to bomb and kill millions of innocent civilians indiscriminately to ensure a weak insurgency power structure that was hidden within.  With unfriendly 24-hour news networks and embedded reporters at every turn, this was not a viable option as it was in previous wars.  Couple this with foreign interference after the fact, which included money, equipment, and even fighters; it’s actually quite amazing how well coalition troops have done.

Lucky for us all (and by all I mean the entire world), the 2004 election brought us leadership that understood the need, and most of all, the benefit of finishing what we started.  With the insurgency growing and supposed bad news mounting, the fickle 1/3 of the population (the ones between the other 2/3 standing to their left and their right) jumped ship.  Fortunately for us all, the weak minded did not prevail.  The 1/3 that held steadfast in their position through thick and thin has not only fought off the 1/3 on the left, but also the 1/3 in the middle who couldn’t hold true to a position if you nail gunned their asses to it.  A victory in Iraq will be remembered for two reasons, and two reasons only — The United States Armed Forces, and President George Walker Bush. 

Whether you’re a liberal and you dislike him because he’s too conservative, or you’re a conservative and you dislike him because he’s too liberal, one thing can be said for certain — The man led this country during war with conviction and honor, and I personally thank him.  History will vindicate him, just as it has President Ronald Wilson Reagan, God rest his soul.  Most in President Bush’s position would have buckled to the will of the democrat lead congress, or the polls that include those bandwagon 1/3 in the middle who couldn’t decide how they wanted their eggs cooked without being brought to tears.  If you need help, it’s quite easy to identify the fickle 1/3 in the middle — they’re wearing a brand new New York Giants hat, or a crisp shiny new Boston Red Sox jacket.  They should really just focus on what really matters in their lives… American Idol.

So, back to the task at hand — how do we quantify a victory?  How do we determine if we’re at least moving in the right direction?  Well, if you’re against the war you’ll probably point to the fact that civilians are dying and immediately come to the conclusion that we should get out.  This of course is disingenuous since even they know the bloodshed in Iraq would increase 100 fold without the brave men and women of the U.S. military protecting the innocent.  The “intellectuals” on the left in Hollywood preach to us all the time about the ills of America and how it’s killing the innocent in Iraq.  Sharon Stone was recently quoted as saying the military liberation of Iraq was somehow responsible for the deaths of 600,000 innocent civilian Iraqis and that the lives of Iraqis are ignored while the lives of the (only?) 4,000 brave men and women who died trying to protect these civilians are somehow too heralded and celebrated for their sacrifice.  Here’s her quote.

“I feel at great pain when the spotlight is on the death of 4,000 American soldiers, while 600,000 Iraqi deaths are ignored,”

Hey Sharon, I’ll make a deal with you.  I promise to leave the “showing off the beaver on the silver screen” to those who have a beaver, if you promise to leave the thinking to those of us who have a brain.  NEWS FLASH: We spotlight the lives of those 4,000 soldiers because they’re over there dying trying to protect the innocent who are being killed by terrorists.  They’re the ones trying to stop children from being slaughtered at the hands of radical Islam.  They’re also Americans, and you should fall to your knees with pain in your heart knowing another American is suffering in anyway, even for such a noble cause as this.

Not withstanding this bimbo’s credentials, let’s just pretend to believe her outrageous number of 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed.  Let’s just pretend that 120,000 civilians a year have been murdered in Iraq since its liberation in 2003.  Let’s imagine that 10,000 a month have died every month since then.  That 2,500 men, women, and children, are dying each week.  A total of 322 humans a day, 13 every hour, 1 every 4.6 minutes of every day for five years straight.  600,000 souls!  From sun up to sundown and throughout the night as people slept; 13 lives every hour have supposedly been ended, for almost five years straight.

Now that we’re done with the sicko math, I ask her, even if the number is plausible (which it’s not), how many of these people died at the hands of U.S. servicemen?  Even if you believe this outrageously exaggerated and politically expedient number of 600,000, do you believe the U.S. soldier did most of them?  Even half of them?  Maybe 95% of them she would tell you?  Actually, I’m sure that almost none were intentional killed by soldiers, especially when you factor out the “civilians” killed that are not at all civilians, but rather terrorists and insurgents, classified by these “peace” organizations as the innocent. 

I’ll take your sicko math another step further.  How many innocent lives in Iraq are saved each day by the brave men and women of the armed forces?  How many were murdered each year at the hands of a dictatorial regime before the military showed up five years ago?  The same human rights organizations that calculate 600,000 dead today, estimated that over one million died the previous 20 years under Saddam Hussein.  Was that number going to get better or worse under a Saddam dictatorial regime?    Do you think it’s a net gain or net loss of life today?  Is it a net gain or loss when compared to what would happen without our help today?  People have got to stop consuming the news as if it were the gospel according to Katie Couric.  Think just for a moment about what could have happened had certain events not occurred.  Don’t be just one dimensionally about what is happening, but rather, also what could have happened.  Historical perspective.  Cause and effect.  Logical fallacies. 

Enough about the bimbo life-wing mathematician.  We’re still left with the unsavory task of deciding how to quantify whether or not we are indeed winning in Iraq.  We know that the loss of life has dropped markedly over the past year, for the soldier as well as the civilian.  This should be welcome and joyous news for all on the right as well as the left of the political spectrum.  All Americans and all humans should be rejoicing, right?  But alas, this is not the case.  Some hope for a continued body count to ensure their sick political ambitions.  It’s beyond the pale and treasonous at best.  Politicizing an issue as serious as this is the second oldest profession known to man, and the whores know who they are. 

Quantifying the win is something I may have finally figured out how to calculate; and without using the liberal “too many lives lost,” or “too much of my money spent” benchmarks for withdrawal.  Our goal in Iraq, when we leave (for the most part), is to ensure the people of that country have a chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That’s it.  A chance at success.  The distinct possibility that once left to their own devices they can continue to make life better for all their citizens as well as neighbors.  Like kicking your kid out of the house at the age of 18, not the age of 5, the chances of success increases with time.  Can they screw it up still?  Of course they can.  Look at how we’re trying to screw up our republic over 200 years after its creation.  Yes, leaving Iraq right now and just hoping the power of music creates peace is noble and even has a very slim chance of success (and by slim, I mean .00000000003), but without at least a certain guarantee, I’m sticking with what we’ve invested in and what has worked in the past — the U.S. military. 

Okay, so again, how do we know when we’re winning in Iraq?  Should we stay for the entire event, or try and beat the traffic home?  Read this article and form you own conclusion.  No, don’t get someone’s opinion about the article; read it and decide for yourself.  Are we winning?  And no, this is not an article from The Weekly Standard, it’s from the New York Freaking Times.  Now, if the New York Times can publish something like this, I would have to say so.  But don’t take my word for it, let’s ask an Iraqi…  

“I used to love Osama bin Laden,” proclaimed a 24-year-old Iraqi college student. She was referring to how she felt before the war took hold in her native Baghdad. The Sept. 11, 2001, strike at American supremacy was satisfying, and the deaths abstract.

Now, the student recites the familiar complaints: Her college has segregated the security checks; guards told her to stop wearing a revealing skirt; she covers her head for safety.

“Now I hate Islam,” she said, sitting in her family’s unadorned living room in central Baghdad. “ Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army are spreading hatred. People are being killed for nothing.”

She hates Islam, or at least its teachings of hate?  One persons quote is all the quantifying I need.  She hates Islam, folks.  Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!!!!!

Countries Better Than America Watch: Saudi Arabia — Star (bucks Holy) Wars

Once again, another fine example of why liberals hate America and love the rest of the world.  Here’s the story of a young American woman living in Saudi Arabia.  She enjoys working there and the highlight of her week is when she gets to enjoy a nice hot cup of coffee with a coworker at the local Starbucks.  That is, until the religious police show up and accuse you of fraternizing with a male not related to you. 

Her other sins against Allah?  She was dressed rather provocatively.  Translation: Showing too much neck and face, making otherwise peaceful and law abiding Saudi men want to rape her.  And what prattle do you think the religious po po do when they arrest a woman for such heinous acts as dressing “slutty” at a coffee shop?  Why, they strip-search her of course.

The men were from Saudi Arabia’s Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, a police force of several thousand men charged with enforcing dress codes, sex segregation and the observance of prayers.

Yara says she was interrogated, strip-searched and forced to sign and fingerprint a series of confessions pleading guilty to her “crime,” the Times reported.

I know what you’re wondering, if she’s charged with the crime of fraternizing with a male companion that’s not a relative and also for looking too hot, then where the hell did the “re po po” find a family member of hers on such short notice to strip-search her?  She better just thank God Allah she didn’t fail to give a man an erection, or she’d be put to death.  You stay classy Saudi Arabia… you stay classy.

God Loved You, As He Loved Jacob

Every week we find ourselves sitting in the office on a Friday morning, wanting to work, but instead, not being able to get last nights episode of Lost out of our heads long enough to do our employer’s evil bidding.  So, we think, and we write.  Well, this week I was given a link to a video that sheds quite a bit of light on the subject (Hat Tip: J-Clizz).  Check it out.

If that evil employer of yours also blocks YouTube videos I’ll quickly give you the nut of the story.  It’s another one of those old school training videos for yet another hatch.  During this video, a rabbit is duplicated, or sent through space/time, and the scientist—who is actually outed in this video as an actor—tries to hide the two rabbits from each other, alla Back to the Future.  This—like every week this season—furthers the time travelling theory even more (Last week it was the rocket launch and its 30 minute delay). 

The really interesting part of the video is caught in the subliminal flashes [again, Hat Tip: J-Clizz].  There’s a quick flash on the screen that reads — “God loved you as Jacob.”  That’s when the epiphany, no, when the vision came to me.  It was like I was sitting in Sunday School all over again.  Abraham begot Isaac, and Isaac begot Jacob.  Remember that song gang?  Father Abraham had many sons?  I didn’t think so, you heathens. 

If you were wondering whether or not J.J. Abrams has a God complex, well wonder no more.  Guess what Father Abraham’s original name was before the interpretation from Hebrew?  That’s right Lost fans followers — Abrams.  Damn you to hell for blasphemy J.J. Abrams. 

At any rate, it gets even more interesting (or creepy, depending on your personal theology) when you do a little research on Jacob.  You see, Jacob was not only Father Abraham’s grandson.  He was not only the man that begot the 12 tribes of Israel, those who formed the bedrock of Judaism.  He was also the guy who married a couple sisters by the name of Leah and Rachel.   

Stay with me folks!  Should I sing some hymns between the sermon?  So, Leah, the woman Jacob didn’t really love all that much, was more of a consolation prize given to him after he tried to win the heart of Rachel by working for their father for the better part of a decade.  He eventually married Rachel as well, but something went terribly awry.  You see, Rachel was what you would call barren.  For those of you living in Yulee, that means she couldn’t get pregnant or give birth.

All Lost fans know that there have been two major underlying themes throughout the Lost mythology.  One being the pregnancy issues, the other being the daddy issues.  Jacob and pregnancy issues — CHECK!  Everyone on the island has either killed their dad, wants to, or wanted to.  Low and behold, Jacob also had daddy issues.  As the story goes, he wanted to get his father Isaac’s blessing, but that was reserved for Jacobs twin brother Esau, who was born seconds before his twin brother.  By the way, blessing involved who got the family money. 

So, Jacob deceived his father into thinking he was Esau, and received the blessing necessary to become a great and wealthy man.  The name Jacob came to mean to deceive after these events transpired in the bible.  Speaking of daddy issues, Jacob’s father Isaac was the child of Abraham, the same Abraham that God (his father!) instructed to sacrifice his son, Isaac.  Jacob and daddy issues — DOUBLE CHECK!

So, now that we know who Jacob is, let’s figure out how he’s involved in this whole affair on the island.  This is where it gets a little weird, so bare with me.  Jacob, a very powerful and rich man during his time on Earth, so loved his wife Rachel, that he did something drastic.  He created a secret organization (such as the Knight’s Templar) with one sole purpose — to pass down detailed instructions to each subsequent generation and aggressively work towards a solution to his “love” problem. 

He assumed that one day mankind would devise a way to travel back in time.  He also knew that Rachel’s barren womb could one day be cured as well.  Once the obstacle of traversing time and infertility were overcome, they could come back and correct what God had failed to do.  The organization has the time machine figured out, but I’m guessing are still having issues with the infertility.

I’m thinking that maybe the organization has been hijacked or infiltrated by nefarious people, intent on stopping Jacob’s one true believer, Ben, from carrying out Jacob’s task.  Either that, or Ben’s dad was part of the plan and Ben’s mom was a guinea pig and now he’s attempting to stop the organization.  Not sure which way is which.  Regardless, no more need to watch Lost since I’ve figured it all out.  Thank God that’s over.  And by God, I mean J.J. Abrams. 

*****

[Editor’s Update: Homer Nods!  Rachel eventually did have children after being barren almost her entire life.  She gave birth to two boys in her old age after Jacob cursed God for not giving him children with her (I guess it’s finally been proven that the Internet can be wrong, crazy I know).  Someone told me that Jacob fell mute for cursing God before having children.  Anyone know anything about that?   

So, thanks TWOTP for pointing that out, and the chapter in Genesis that it is found.  So, let’s look at Genesis 35:18 she’s referring to.

And when her soul was departing for pain, and death was now at hand, she called the name of her son Benoni, that is, The son of my pain: but his father called him Benjamin, that is, The son of the right hand.

So, Rachel finally gave birth to a son and then soon after gave birth to a final son, which she died giving birth to.  The name of this son?  Ben!!!!  Remember Ben’s mother?  You know, the one that died during childbirth. 

The plot thickens.]

You’re the O-Bomb-a!

Bill “Ted Kennedy” Clinton

 Obama continues to pound Hillary Clinton into the ground during the primaries, which of course puts a gigantic smile on my face.  I’m not quite sure who I think would be the weaker candidate in the general election, and I keep going back and forth on this, but while I’m waiting it’s nice watching that worthless evil woman go down in flames.  I was reading some election results for their race in Wisconsin and I came across this article and this excerpt in particular.

In the poll, Obama led Clinton among Democrats and independents, in all age groups except seniors and in all income groups except those making under $25,000 a year. He led narrowly among whites and more widely among men. He was tied among women with Clinton, who would be the first woman U.S. president.

So, Hillary has the support of old white people who used to own slaves and poor white redneck people who wish they still could.  Not surprising, considering her white trash husband only won the White House with a plurality of the vote at around 43%.  Thanks Ross Perot, you nut job idiot. 

So, now the Republicans in Texas get to decide who they want to win between Obama and Clinton and ultimately who McCain will run against in the general election.  You see, Independents and Republicans can vote for either the democrat candidate or their own.  Since McCain is a sure thing now, Republicans can decide who they want to win in Texas on March 4, by voting for Hillary or Obama.  We have two weeks to decide.  I’ll be crunching some numbers and posting them here over those two weeks.  Please comment here and give me your opinion on who you think is the weaker candidate and more easily beatable in November. 

Oh, and one last thing… God I hope we get to see Hillary cry again.  She’s setting the woman’s movement back 50 years.  Got to love her, huh ladies?   

The Salaam Witch Hunt

Every four years, without fail, some people will reveal to all their friends, family, and anyone else in earshot at the bar, that if <insert political candidate> wins the election, they’re moving to another country.  If they’re conservative, it’s off to Australia, if they’re liberal, it’s off to Cuba, where it’s fair because everyone gets the same sized government issued rice cooker.  Albeit, no rice to cook, but at least your neighbor’s family is starving too.  Finally, equality for all my friend.

One of the other countries the younger liberals love to love is Iran, where its leader pulls no punches when addressing the evils of the tyrannical President Bush and the Great Satan, America.  Any country that hates America can’t be all that bad, right hippies?  They truly do believe in and embrace the old Art of War philosophy that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” (okay, maybe that’s not from the Art of War, but it sounds better when I reference it as such). 

So, to counter the love-fest these Clintonites show for these insidious theocracies, we here at HDW like to post examples outlining the ills of these ass backwards middle eastern countries, and boy have we found a dozy this time.  Today’s example takes us to beautiful sunny Saudi Arabia, which is actually one of the few countries the liberals do hate, but only because they have the audacity to allow the U.S. to maintain a military presence there, which is ideal for launching attacks on the once tranquil peace loving nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Our story is that of a witch and her crimes against Islam.  Here’s the nut of the story.

The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read.

Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent.

Human Rights Watch said that Ms Falih had exhausted all her chances of appealing against her death sentence and she could only now be saved if King Abdullah intervened.   

That’s right, this illiterate woman has been convicted of witchcraft and sentenced to death on the grounds that she made a guy impotent through the wonders of magic.  Really?  She used magic?  Women usually just make men impotent through the power of getting really fat, so this is a little bit of overkill if you ask me.  Although, knowing some of the laws in the middle east, a woman getting really fat is probably a crime punishable by death as well. 

But, let’s just play along and assume that she did cast a magic spell called “abbry cadabry, your dong’s always flabby”.  Is that really a crime punishable by death?  If so, Saudi Arabia needs to immediately go pick up Rosie O’Donnell.  She’s made more men impotent than eating a salt-peter popsicle while accidentally seeing your grandma naked as she’s getting out of the tub.  “Now, put down that popsicle and hand gammy her robe.” 

All kidding aside, how can any woman or liberal not want to destroy some of these countries current governments and religious institutions?  If anything else, let’s at least do it for the sake of half their population; the half that had the misfortune and dumb luck of being born female in the middle east. 

Now, where did I put my wand?  That lock of Hillary Clinton’s hair that I bought on eBay just arrived in the mail and I have to get started before this falls erection, err… I mean election.  Damn it, if she wins, I’m moving to Austria!!!  Or is it Australia?  Whatever!    

www.GlobalWarmingIsATotalCrockOfShit.com

Dear religious fanatics, 

This week, Bob Lutz, the head of General Motors design team and the number two man in the company, made some interesting observations at a restaurant with media members.  You can read the whole exchange here, but the best quote is this one.

 Global warming is a “total crock of shit.”

I don’t know about you guys, but Bob will soon be receiving a request from my lawyers to adopt me.  Whether the statement is true or not (it is), it’s refreshing to hear someone that “high up” in the world talk like a normal person.  I’m getting t-shirts and bumper stickers made up right now — Global Warming is a Total Crock of Shit!   

For those of you who disagree with the man, please kindly remove your heads from your asses for two minutes, just long enough to understand that what he said about your church is 100% true.  Whether global warmism is real, your churches method for “spreading the gospel” is a total crock of shit.  This is why your cult has to always equate anyone that disagrees with the “science” of global warmism to holocaust deniers.  It’s rather sad that you can’t have an intellectual conversation concerning the causes of climate change without you vilifying anyone who may actually think global temperature change isn’t entirely man made. 

Remember gang, always worry when the scientific community has “consensus” concerning anything, because that’s code for “plenty of grant money” from somewhere.  German scientist had consensus in 1938 that the Jews were actually tailed lizard devils from outer-space and needed to be exterminated to keep the Rhineland pure.  Just because everyone thinks the world is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that we have to stop global cooling (circa 1970: negative global warmism), doesn’t mean that many years later someone can’t sail around the globe and disprove commonly conceived notions disguised as supposed facts, specifically designed by governments as a type of control. 

I’ll make a deal with you.  When a scientist can accurately predict next weeks temperature within five degrees every time for a year then I’ll start to maybe believe they can predict the earth’s temperature 50 years from now.  Until then, Global Warmism is a crock of shit and you are a believer who belongs to the “Church of What’s Happening Now” my friend. 

Oh, one last thing before I get into Reader’s Digest essay length (too late, sorry).  If you’re from Europe and you have an opinion concerning this matter, please type it up on a sheet of paper and promptly cram it up your ass.  Until you save our country from a Canadian invasion, please shut the f**k up.

So, now you Global Warmism members can start bashing me as an idiot and asshole.  Great way to stop debate and encourage group think and most of all, increase the size of your churches congregation.  You can pass around that plate now guys. 

Love, 
Earth Hater

One Day in the Life of the Bad Protagonist

Question: When will the new season seven of 24 begin? 

Well, while searching for some info on that very subject—now that the writers’ strike has ended—I came across an interesting Wall Street Journal article on torture.  And by interesting I mean apparently written by a 14-year-old or maybe a New York Times columnist (shame on you WSJ).  It tries to tie a strong correlation between the decline in the popularity of the TV show 24 and America’s decline in the popularity of the use of torture during the execution of the War On Terror. 

Before I get into the rant, I’d first like to say there is absolutely positively no correlation—not even a weak one—between these two events, and I will unequivocally prove this using the basic tenets of math and science.  I won’t spend the time working out the statistical Z-score just yet, but I will as soon as I get a free couple hours to spare.  If you’d first like to review some basic statistical concepts and definitions, checkout this stats 101 website and brush up for later.  

First of all, check out the numbers here in this graph.  The first thing you should notice (if you can read or you’re not Stevie Wonder) is the rough average number of viewers between season one and then season six.  Looks roughly like about 9 to 10 million viewers in season one and 13 to 14 million in season six (finger estimate).  I’m no genius, but that’s about a 40% increase in viewership over those two seasonal bookends.  Season six even has the average highest rated season ever for the show.  I’ll let you research what TV shows historically do around season four or five, but just trust me when I say they’d all kill for a 40% increase in viewership from season one to that point.  Hell, most just don’t want to be cancelled by their sixth season. 

Now, let’s study the season six numbers alone for a minute.  We’ll actually come up with a totally different hypothesis than the one assumed by the writer if we attempt to show a correlation between the content of the show and its viewership (which is what this bozo, who apparently never watches the show, was trying to do in the first place, only they got it backwards).  Season six—while being popular at first—shows the biggest and most consistent drop off in viewership between the first episode and last.  Almost every week it had less viewers than the week before, which had never happened in the shows history. 

Now, if this anomaly occurred in 2004 during the height of the Abu Ghraib kerfuffle, then maybe we could say it had something to do with torture, but alas, that didn’t happen.  Actually, the inverse occurred, with 24 increasing viewership by almost 2 million viewers in 2004 during that time-frame.  Season six started over two and half years after Abu Ghriab, with the second most watched episode in the shows history.  Only one other episode had been watched more before this point, and that was season five’s premiere, which by the way happened around two years after Abu Ghriab.   

During season six, and even during the “big event points” that occur on 24 about every six episodes and always midway through the season, the drop off still continues.  If you look at every other season you’ll see these spikes in viewership at these event points.  So, what happened in season six that caused 24 to consistently lose so many viewers as the season progressed?  Why did the bleeding begin and progressively get worse?  Well, I can tell you that the viewers “tired of the same old story” dropped off in season four, or at least my anecdotal data proves that to be the case.  A lot of the 24 fans I knew back then decided that Jack Bauer saving the world three times was enough.  So, why the highest rating to begin the season, followed by the bleeding? 

What happened throughout the last season when the show saw such a drop off?  Jack came back from China and decided torture wasn’t the answer, that’s what.  He also came back and second guessed killing a bad guy for moral reason.  He also decided to negotiate with an obvious Bin Laden type character who saw the “light” and wanted to sign a treaty of peace with the “American scum”, only to be killed by an American and cabinet member who wanted to continue the war.  Jack also killed one of his best friends and a true patriot, Curtis Manning, to save the life of that Bin Laden character. 

So, the only real drop off that has occurred has been during a season filled with preaching about the ills of torture and a hero bent on appeasing terrorists to the point of killing his best friend (an allegory for the American left if there ever was one).  If you want to make a show people watch, please, make Jack a hero, not a politician.  Make him a man of action and quick in decision.  No woman wants a man who can’t make a decision, and no country wants a terrorist fighter with a moral compass.  Even if what a character like Jack does is wrong, that doesn’t make it ethically wrong to tell a story about it.  He does bad things to save good people.  There are consequences for his transgressions, like his wife being killed, his daughter hating him, his father and brother turning to the dark side and trying to kill him, and everyone he knows who isn’t dead—which is most of them—hating him.  Tony Soprano anyone?  Dexter anyone?  Hamlet anyone? 

So, the next time the author of this ridiculous article decides to dig deep into extremely tough subject matter such as math, statistics, morality, or literature, I hope they just stick with what they know — which appears to be close to nothing.  I also hope the producers of 24 have learned from their season six missteps.  From the looks of the 24 season 7 preview they have, but from the new cast of characters (Janine “Air America” Garofalo???), maybe not.  Still, can’t wait to see Red Forman from That 70’s Show as a dumb ass senator.  Well, I guess there’s always that show Dexter.  The show about a man who knows how to deal with evil, no matter what the cost.

Oh, and I almost forgot — still no word on when the new season of 24 begins.  Now that didn’t take long for me to get to, now did it?

Lostbusters!

More like Mythbusters at this point.

Yeah, the Asian Ghostbuster (aka, Uncle Juniors crazy buddy in the nut house on The Sopranos) is really starting to piss me off.  Why would an organization send in a bunch of idiots who are obviously not trained tactically to apprehend/extract someone such as Ben?

Do we assume the plane wreckage is a cover up plant or real?  Not sure what to think about that.  I’m leaning towards it being a cover up and not an alternative space/time line.

I’m sticking to my guns too — the Oceanic Six must include Sawyer (“I have to get back to him Jack!”) and I’m guessing the last two will be the dog and the baby (A dingo ate my baby).  At this point, I’m only concerned and emotionally invested in the dog getting off the island alive.  Actually, they may end the whole show with the dog sitting on a cold bathroom floor, slowly dying from old age and dreaming the whole thing as he ascends ever so closer to the heavens.  It’s really the only way this will all make any sense.

Also, the polar bear in Africa leads me further to believe in the time travel theory.  We all know (according to Albert Einstein and Hiro on Heroes) that time travel includes teleportation (the bending of space and time) and experimenting with animals would be an obvious route to take during QA, UAT, regression, and acceptance testing.

Anyone seen the movie The Prestige?  I’m waiting on Lost to mention Tesla in an upcoming episode.  In real-life, Tesla believed you could wirelessly transport electricity through the earth and to anywhere on the planet.  He also thought this could maybe lead to teleporting not only data but physical objects as well (the matter cannot be destroyed theory).  Funny how he was right concerning electricity and data about 100 years early.  Maybe Darma was experimenting with these theories and stumbled across the time traveling aspects by mistake.  When this accidentally happened either the company had to clean up the time travelling mess by finding the workers LOST in time, Ben being the companies “Public Enemy Number One”. 

Still doesn’t explain why they’re sending a bunch of rookies to apprehend him.  Unless of course, they’re connected to the island.  Obviously, the dude crying in his living room over the plane being found and not knowing why would lead us to this conclusion.  That and the ghostbuster powers.  Oh, and the pilots martini making powers.

Jiffy Lube Job

If you take your car to Jiffy Lube — STOP IT!!!!  If you own Jiffy Lube stock — SELL IT!!!!

I know what you’re thinking… “A dishonest mechanic?  Say it ain’t so!!!!”